Content-Type:               text
Content-Length: 00000000019
 
My 20 cents worth.
 
Content-Type:               text
Content-Length: 00000006643
 
 ==============================================================================
Walter D. Kingsborough
Zone Archeologist
Sam Houston National Forest
National Forests and Grasslands in Texas
Raven Ranger District
P.O. Box 1000
New Waverly, Tx. 77358
(409) 344-6205 fax:(409) 344-2123
internet:[log in to unmask]
 ==============================================================================
Opinions and viewpoints are purely those of the author and in no way represent
the policies of the USDA Forest Service nor the opinions and viewpoints of any
official representative of the Forest Service.
 ==============================================================================
 
Re: PA/HA Debate
 
I am quite puzzled by this distinction between prehistoric and historic
archaeology. If my memory serves me right, I studied Anthropology when I was in
school. I know that my diploma says "Anthropology." There is nothing about
historic or prehistoric archaeology, nor for that matter, any of the other
subfields of anthropology on my diploma. I know that there are specialized
programs, and specialized degrees. My point, simply, is that I am not a PA nor
an HA. I am an anthropologist who, through purely personal preference, chooses
to study the cultures of past peoples. Whether or not those peoples knew how to
write, or chose to write even if they knew how, or chose to create images on
rock, pottery, bone, shell, paper, etc. is of little consequence in determining
which I would prefer to study. However, I do admit to a slight preference
toward less stratified cultures which often, though not always, means
prehistoric. If I were to choose to concentrate purely on prehistoric or purely
on historic sites, then I might be placing myself at a disadvantage in the job
market, in or out of academia. Having been in the market for some time now, my
heart goes out to anyone, prehistoric or historic, who is feeling the crunch.
 
As a Cultural Resources Manager, I deal with both prehistoric and historic
sites. In Southeast Texas these usually fall into two classes: precontact
Native American sites, and postcontact Euroamerican and Native American sites.
The date separating pre- from postcontact times is not one that has been
specifically defined. Some say prehistoric is pre-Columbian, some say historic
is the presence of European or Euroamerican artifacts, whenever they first
appear in the archaeological record. Each site, whether prehistoric or
historic, must first be assessed on its own merits as to its potential and
integrity, and then as to its relationship to other sites if it is part of a
cultural district.
 
The study of past peoples through the documents that they produced used to be
called Ethnohistory. Perhaps this field has died away, or perhaps I've been
away from academia too long. Reference to any particular historic site in
Southeast Texas can usually, though not always, be found in one or several of a
number of types of historical documents. References to a number of prehistoric
sites that happened to be extant at the time of contact can also be found in
some historical documents. Regardless, additional references to historic and
prehistoric sites can be found in site reports, survey records, research papers,
 etc. A literature search prior to field work might include any or all
of these document sources. The purpose of a prefield literature search is to
acquire information about the site that is to be excavated, or about sites in
the area that is to be surveyed. This information can be used to formulate a
research design that will guide the field work, ensuring reliable results and
maximum return for your efforts, as well ensuring maximum return for the
destruction caused by testing. Regardless of whether the site is prehistoric or
historic, a literature search should be part of the investigative process.
 
Whether the documents included in the literature search are historical or the
result of previous research makes little difference. The interpretation of the
artifact assemblage of a prehistoric site can be aided by a search of the
results of previous investigations, just as the interpretation of the artifact
assemblage of a historic site can be aided by a search of historical documents
(as well as by a search of the results of previous investigations). Again, it
makes little difference whether the site is prehistoric or historic, or whether
the prefield literature search includes the results of previous investigations
or historical documents, or both. The procedures are the same.
 
Finally, the research design that the investigator has formulated from the
results of the prefield literature search is a model to be tested by the field
work. By the same token, the field work can be compared to the hypothetical
results projected from the research design. If the hypothetical results and the
results of the field work do not fit, then the investigator needs to consider
carefully the validity of the research design, or the validity of the results
of the field work. Is there a bias in the documentation, or is there a bias in
the field work? Was the field work biased by the documentation? Just as one
must consider the validity of the results of previous investigations, so must
one consider the validity of the information contained in historical documents.
Suppose that in all of the literature (research or historical) reviewed for a
project there is no mention of a particular artifact class. Is the investigator
justified if the field methods do not consider the possiblity of its existance
on the site? Probably. However, there should be no suprise if none are found.
Conversely, the negative field results cannot be used to support the negative
results of the literature search if the field methods did not test for that
artifact class.
 
Given that it is usually a logistical necessity to limit the scope of field
work, the best way to ensure valid field results, given the logistical
limitations, is to begin with a good research design. At the same time, be very
careful not to let the results of the literature search dictate the results of
the field work. If this were the case, there would be little reason to do the
field work. Whether you are investigating a historic or prehistoric site, make
good use of all available documentation. But, beware of becoming too focused on
the documentation whether that be historical documents, the results of others'
investigations, or the results of your own investigations. Documentation is a
tool: potentially more useful than a shovel and trowel, but also potentially
more damaging.